I went and read the piece. The quotes you are highlighting are listed under the heading "Step One - Blame China". Jessie Watters not being nervous is simply irrelevant to the author's point, which is that conservative media tried to blame China (because they're racist). Basically, they failed to even make an argument related to racism. The piece is very poorly written. It tries to demonize telling the truth, as Tucker highlights, and as I restated, which is deranrged. Tucker provided two NY Times headlines confirming their emphasis on racism. It is a failed point.
Whether conservative media denied the facts because of Trump or whatever is another argument. That's "Step Two - Play Down The Risks". Tucker shows a NY Times headline from Feb 5 stating "Who says it's not safe to travel to China?". This is a week after Watters made his comment (Which if you know the show isn't to be taken seriously anyway. You do realize they discuss beforehand their positions so that they make sure they have something to argue about, right?) I think lots of media were caught off guard, but if you said there were more in the "conservative press" I would have no argument with that, although again. I don't think they made the argument persuasively though. Citing Limbaugh and Hannity is technically media, but it isn't news reporting. Anyway I don't question the point, but it would have been useful to cite the Times' own lack of concern.
Steps 3 & 4 basically say the media politicized it. Which I have no doubt is true. Especially Limbaugh et al. The NY Times ran a headline "The Road To Hell Was Paved By Evangelicals" and "Let's Call It Trumpvirus".
The bottom line is the Times is attacking conservative media for downplaying the virus. Which, no surprise, it's a hit piece on conservative media. This was reported as news, not opinion.
Given that (Thanks to Tucker's piece) we know the Times did everything that everyone conservative media did, what do you conclude the significance of the article is? What should a person take away from the article?
My own conclusion is that you would not have a fair and balanced understanding of the issues if you did not watch Tucker's story. How would you have known that the NY Times actually did what they are accusing others of doing? You need to watch both sides, or else you develop an extremely warped, evidentially unsupportable viewpoint.